Wednesday, August 06, 2025

Darja miscellaneous notes 2025

Every time I go to Algeria, I come back with some linguistic observations that are new to me (if not necessarily to anyone else.) Here are this year's.

Many collective nouns take plural agreement: sqit əššjəṛ əttəħtaniyyin “I irrigated the lower trees”, kanu sjəṛ “there were trees”, ənnməl haðu “these ants”. Not all do, though, or at least not all the time: nnamus bəkri kʊnna nšufuh nəqqʊtluh “mosquitoes, in the old days, if we saw them (lit. it) we’d kill them (lit. it).” A topic worth looking at in more detail.

“Have”-based expressions for “ago” are familiar from Romance languages; in Darja, however, they agree with the notional possessor, e.g. dərtu ma-ʕəndi-š bəzzaf ‘I did it not long ago’ (lit. “I did it I don’t have much”). Along similar lines, the subject of ʕla bal-i “I know” (originally “on my awareness”) was originally the theme, the fact known. Synchronically, however, utterances like ma-kʊnt-š ʕlabal-i “I didn’t know” (lit. “I was not I know”) suggest this is no longer the case.

Another example of næ̃mpoṛt (discussed here previously): u xəllih yakʊl næ̃mpoṛt ħaja ‘and let him eat anything’.

The construct state has undergone some interesting developments. Most masculine nouns have no distinct construct state, and most feminine nouns form a construct state by replacing -a with -ət. If we factor out, for the present, the stem-internal effects of schwa-zero alternations and compensatory gemination, then, for most nouns, we can speak of a single construct state used for head nouns followed by possessor NPs or by suffixed possessor pronouns alike. However, a few nouns show a different distribution. Several kinship terms in -a take the suffixes directly: yəmma-k ‘your mother’, baba-k ‘your father’, jədda-k ‘your grandmother’, even ṭaṭa-k ‘your auntie’. (These nouns have zero-marked 1Sg possession: yəmma u yəmma-k “my and your mother”.) Such nouns usually take clitic doubled possessives (yəmma-ha ntaʕ Baya ‘Baya’s mother’, lit. ‘her mother of Baya’); however, if used in the regular synthetic possessive (“iḍāfah”) construction, they take a suffix t, e.g. yəmma-t yəmma-k “your mother’s mother”. For these nouns, it seems tempting to postulate two construct states rather than one.

The noun pattern CəCCayC is not particularly productive, but I heard a new example: tərtayqat “firecrackers” (cf. tərtəq “pop”). Other examples include ħərrayqa “jellyfish” (ħrəq “burn”), xʊṭṭayəf “swallow (bird)” (xṭəf “snatch”), bu-zəllayəq “blenny (fish)” (zləq “slip”).

Feminine nouns without overt feminine marking form diminutives with overt feminine marking: yədd ‘hand’ > ydida ‘little hand’. Very few masculine nouns have apparent feminine marking, but x(a)lifa ‘caliph’ is one such; məskin əlxliyyəf haðak “poor little caliph!” shows that the converse is also true, i.e. that masculine nouns with apparent feminine marking form diminutives without it.

The verbal template CəCCəC is in generally semantically and syntactically distinct ftom its corresponding passive/middle tCəCCəC. However, the distinction is neutralised in the participles: mwəð̣ð̣i “washed for prayer” from twəð̣ð̣a, mkəṛməṣ “dried (of figs)” from tkəṛməṣ “dry (of figs, intr.)”. Some speakers, however, do say mətwəð̣ð̣i.

Passives in n usually involve a simple coda n, but I heard clear gemination in li baš yənnəqsəm ‘for it to be divided’. The question of gemination in triliteral passives would deserve a closer look.

Weak-final triliteral verbs tend to add -an- in verbal nouns: tənħaniyya “removal” from nəħħi “remove”.’

A few emotional idioms: bərrəd qəlb-u “he cooled his heart”, i.e. he satisfied his heart’s desire; ṭəyyəṛhali “he made it fly for me”, i.e. he made me lose my temper; ṭəḷḷəʕlu lgaz “he raised the gas for him”, i.e. he made him angry. A proverb: triq əlʕafya tənẓaṛ yalukan tkun bʕida “the road of safety gets visited even if it’s far away.”

The usual ‘whatchamacallit’-word in Dellys and elsewhere in Algeria is laxʊṛ, originally “the other one”, used to substitute for verbs as well as nouns. However, from a relative about 90 years old, I heard a different construction based on haðak “that”: ma-yhaðak-š “he doesn’t whatsit”. This is paralleled in Malta and Morocco, so presumably it used to be more widely used.

The usual word for “knife” in Dellys is mus, but xʊdmi (usual in Bechar) is also in use. However, I hadn’t previously heard xʊdmiša. The curious final š can perhaps be explained as a borrowing from Berber, in some varieties of which ṯaxʷəḏmiyṯ would regularly yield ṯaxʷəḏmišṯ.

French cinquante is often heard as sikõnt “fifty”. The vowel is difficult to explain – influence from another Romance language?

Some words new to me: gərziz “empty gum, empty tooth socket”; ma-ksan-š “he’d rather not”; ṣfiħa “horseshoe”.

The ʕ in the verb ‘give’ is often elided: aṭini “give me” for regular aʕṭini.

I don’t think triliteral verbs ever end in w, but quadriliterals may: yqəwqəw ‘(a chicken) cackles’ (usually yqaqi in Dellys), yčəwčwu ‘they chatter’.

9 comments:

Blasius B. Blasebalg said...

How do French nasals show up in Darija otherwise?

A certain o-like quality in nasal a [â] is not surprising.
When languages denasalize [â], this frequently leads to cases of [ɔ] or [o] (while [a] also occurs of course).

For instance, Polish before t,k,g (and other consonants?) is usually pronounced [ɔn]~[ɔŋ], e.g. 'train'.
English with [ɔ:] or sometimes in England [o:] is also a point in case, as it derives from Proto-West-Germanic *​Þâ:xta.

(Btw, many Germans replace all three (or four) French nasal vowels in loan words or names with [â] or further with [ɔ:]. So for instance, trying to say may actually sound like .)

I guess your surprise at Darija [siko:nt] means that French [â] is usually rendered by another sound, perhaps [a:]?
If that's the case, I would rather suspect an intermediate loan variety that regularly replaces [â] by [o:] rather than another Romance language.


Btw, when is the word used as opposed to the local version of Arabic [ʔarbaˈʕuːn]?

Blasius B. Blasebalg said...

I have to report a theft: Blogger.com has stolen all contents of angle brackets!

In oder to make sense of my post, I repeat it with the missing glosses in quotes.

=======



How do French nasals show up in Darija otherwise?

A certain o-like quality in nasal a [â] is not surprising.
When languages denasalize [â], this frequently leads to cases of [ɔ] or [o] (while [a] also occurs of course).

For instance, Polish "ą" before t,k,g (and other consonants?) is usually pronounced [ɔn]~[ɔŋ], e.g. "pociąg" 'train'.
English "thought" with [ɔ:] or sometimes in England [o:] is also a point in case, as it derives from Proto-West-Germanic *​Þâ:xta.

(Btw, many Germans replace all three (or four) French nasal vowels in loan words or names with [â] or further with [ɔ:]. So for instance, trying to say "Saint Denis" may actually sound like "sans Denis" ...)

I guess your surprise at Darija [siko:nt] means that French [â] is usually rendered by another sound, perhaps [a:]?
If that's the case, I would rather suspect an intermediate loan variety that regularly replaces [â] by [o:] rather than another Romance language.


Btw, when is the word used as opposed to the local version of Arabic [ʔarbaˈʕuːn]?

Lameen Souag الأمين سواق said...

The õ is regular and expected; the surprise is the i in the first syllable.

The local Arabic form is xəmsin.

Blasius B. Blasebalg said...

OK, now I see why you suspect influence from another Romance language.

Now [ɛ̃] > [i] is not a huge shift, and it is favored by two factors here:
The weakness of the prefinal syllable, and the preceding [s] (similar tongue position to [i]).

If that's still exceptional, high frequency of the word might explain irregular simplification. And perhaps the shift took place not in Darija, but in some non-standard variety of French? While I'm speculating, that may be a plausible alternative scenario instead of the complete separate langauge.

And yes, meanwhile I noticed I got numerically confused. And no, I'm telling how long it took me to realize even after having read your reply ...

Blasius B. Blasebalg said...

*I'm NOT telling ...*

Blasius B. Blasebalg said...

Re diminutives:

In Russian, female diminutives work very much as you describe, if we understand ending -a as overt female marking.

Examples:
male without marking --> dim. without marking: rot --> rotik "(little) mouth"
female marking --> dim. with female marking: reka --> rechushka "river / stream"
neuter marking --> dim. with neuter marking: ukho --> ushko "(little) ear"

female without marking --> dim. WITH female marking: yel' ---> yol'ka "(little) fir",
kost' --> kostochka "(small) bone",
mat' ---> matushka "mother / that old woman (pej.)"


While the latter pattern is quite robust, the converse is hard to test, because most (all?) male nouns ending in -a are already familiar variant of names. While diminutives (and second-order diminutives) with -a are also found, we could adduce cases like

Vova --> Vovik "little Vladimir"

(Afaik, there are no neuter nouns without neuter marking, except indeclinable loan words like
safari "safari". I am not aware of diminutives of such words, and it would be interesting to hear whether Russian speakers tend to markings like **safarichko or reject forming diminutives for them altogether.)


Given your description and the Russian examples, there may be some common principle at work:
Diminutives form a special microcosmos of the lexicon, and such easily identifiable subgroups tend to make things easier - in that case, gender assingment rules, and in the case of Russian, also remembering the declension type of the nouns.

Specifically for diminutives, they are often used while talking to children, and easier gender assignment has the additional advantage that it helps young listeners to keep track. So using diminutives may serve the purpose of using simpler grammar for the benefit of understanding.

This latter point is also supported by the fact that diminutives are also usually longer, which makes them easier to recognize and identify.












Blasius B. Blasebalg said...

To avoid misunderstanding, of course not _all_ male nouns in -a are (hypocoristic) names, but all seem to refer to people.

I found dyad'ka as a pejorative diminitive for dyadya "uncle".
Dedushka "grandpa" already is historically a diminutive (of ded); and for
papa "1. Dad, 2. pope" I haven't found a diminutive.

For hypocoristic names, Russian is quite creative in producing many alternative diminutives, including stacked ones. While not the most frequent pattern, female names (in -a) may also have a seemingly male form, such as Yulya ~ Yula ~ Yulchik "little Yulia".

Lameen Souag الأمين سواق said...

Thanks for the Russian comparison. It would be interesting to see how far this generalisation can be extended cross-linguistically.

Blasius B. Blaseblag said...

Another language:

In Italian,
1. diminutives have the same gender as their base words (as in Arabic, Russian), and
2. diminutives are always overtly marked for the (correct) gender.

Examples:
base word overtly marked male: sasso --> sassolino "stone / small stone, pebble"
base word overtly marked feminine: nuvola --> nuvoletta "(small) cloud"

base word male, not overtly marked: dente --> dentello "(little) tooth", cane --> canino "dog(gy)", fiume --> fiumicello "(small) river"
base word feminine, not overtly marked: nave --> navetta "(small) ship", torre --> torretta "(small) tower"


This can be summarized by stating that feminine nouns in Darija, feminine nouns in Russian and both male and feminine nouns in Italian behave similarly: The diminutive is always overtly marked for the right gender, no matter whether the base word was.

Male nouns in Russian and Italian seem to be a slightly different story from Darija: Nouns that are formally ambiguous/not overtly marked male produce clearly marked diminutives (it is possible to make Russian look even more like Italian by considering male nouns ending in soft sign).

However, male nouns that "look" feminine are a somewhat unclear story both in Russian (counterexamples) and in Italian (diminutives hard to find). But as I understood you, the case of the khalif was also not too obvious.

Btw, I have another supporting example from Russian (if its validity is somewhat doubtful):
muzhchina "man" --> muzhik "he-man".
Weak point of this example: 'muzhik' originally derives not from 'muzhchina', but both derive from 'muzh', which contemporarily means "husband".